Department for Energy and Climate Change

September Environment Council

Amber Rudd: I attended the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 18 September. Dr Aileen McLeod, Scottish Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform also attended. Following the final formal agreement on the Market Stability Reserve for the EU Emissions Trading System (which was an “A” item and therefore took place without the need for discussion), Ministers adopted Conclusions on Preparations for the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These were agreed relatively swiftly following effective chairing from the Luxembourg Presidency.Ministers’ discussion focussed on the issues of a Long Term Goal for global decarbonisation, a mechanism of five-yearly reviews for increasing the ambition of the agreement over time and climate finance. Some MS sought more ambitious language regarding these issues; however, others called for the conclusions to reflect domestic pressures on various delegations.Following a complete table round, the Presidency tabled a compromise text, which successfully balanced the concerns of all MS.On adoption of the Conclusions, the Commission tabled a declaration questioning the legal accuracy of a reference in the Conclusions to the Council’s intention for Member States to ‘jointly fulfil’ the ‘at least 40%’ target for emissions reductions and claiming that the Union has exclusive competence to undertake international obligations regarding climate mitigation. Some MS, including the UK, noted that they would table counter statements disagreeing with the Commission’s view of the legal situation, and have subsequently done so.Over lunch, Ministers had a further discussion on tactics and preparations for COP21, including on communications.

Department for Work and Pensions

Outcome of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) 5 October 2015, Luxembourg

Priti Patel: The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council took place on 5 October 2015 in Luxembourg. Shan Morgan the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the UK. There was a policy debate on social governance. As part of the discussion Vice President Dombrovskis noted the success of the 2015 streamlining of the semester, but outlined that further work was needed to ensure better coordination, increased implementation of country specific recommendations (CSRs) and more ownership of the process. Whilst some Ministers outlined their support for increased social benchmarking within the semester process, others, including the UK, stated that existing indicators in the semester were sufficient and raised concerns at any attempt to introduce common standards across all Member States. The Presidency concluded that there was a clear need for strengthened social governance that respected the treaties, and that it would bring forward council conclusions on that topic in the December EPSCO. The Commission outlined its proposal for a Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market which all Ministers welcomed, highlighting actions undertaken at national level and reiterating the need for flexibility within the recommendation. The Presidency sought a general approach on the proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on ‘improving the gender balance among non executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures’. The UK had continued to block this and the Presidency withdrew the item due to lack of progress in the negotiations; but committed to return to the issue at the December EPSCO. The Council adopted the proposal for a council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of Member States. The Chair of the Employment Committee outlined his hope that the revamped European semester would increase the use of the guidelines across Member States. Two council conclusions on adequate retirement incomes in the context of ageing societies, and a new agenda for health and safety at work to foster better working conditions, were both agreed without discussion. The Council received information from the Vice President highlighting the actions the Commission was taking to strengthen social dialogue at EU level. The Presidency provided a short update on the informal meeting of ‘Eurozone only EPSCO Ministers’ that had preceded Council. He reported that they had discussed deepening the social dimension of the EMU, and that social policy needed to go hand in hand with economic policy with particular attention being paid to the social dimension of further Eurozone integration. Under any other business, the Commission presented figures on labour mobility. The Commission will present its Labour Mobility Package at the December EPSCO. The Presidency informed the Council about the Conference on ‘Working conditions for tomorrow’ which had taken place in Luxembourg in September. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS226

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

MARINE LICENSING RECOVERY POLICY

George Eustice: Following a consultation exercise led by my Department in early 2015, the Government has made an amendment to the Order delegating the exercise of certain marine licensing functions to the Marine Management Organisation( MMO). These changes took effect on 1 October 2015. The marine licensing system was introduced by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The exercise of most licensing functions in England and the offshore areas of Wales and Northern Ireland have been delegated by the Secretary of State to the MMO. The purpose of the amending Order is to strengthen democratic accountability on the most complex marine licence applications by providing an opportunity for locally accountable bodies (i.e. Local Planning Authorities, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities) to seek an independent inquiry into certain marine licensing applications, with the final decision taken by Ministers directly accountable to Parliament. It will also enable Ministers to determine certain applications which involve activities of national significance but in relation to which there is no or insufficient planning policy guidance. The Order includes the criteria according to which the Secretary of State will consider whether to “recover” an application. In this context “recover” means that an application is to be determined by the Secretary of State The Government’s intention is that the policy will be highly selective and that only a very small proportion of marine licensing cases will be recovered.The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance to the MMO setting out how it should apply the policy, including providing indicative targets for each stage of the process. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the libraries of both Houses. The Government will review the effectiveness of the policy and consult with stakeholder groups in October 2016.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS222

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Closure of SSI Coke Ovens and Blast Furnace

Sajid Javid: Further to my statement yesterday, I want to update the House on matters relating to SSI UK in Redcar.Yesterday afternoon, the Official Receiver, in his capacity as liquidator of SSI UK Ltd, announced that he had received no viable offers for the Coke Ovens and Blast Furnace following discussions with potential buyers and would therefore begin closing these facilities.This is hugely regrettable news, both for SSI workers, their families and the local economy more broadly. It is also a reflection of the current difficulties facing the Steel industry.The Government remains absolutely focussed on supporting those who find themselves out of work as a result of SSI’s liquidation and, through a package of up to £80m, will continue to invest in them and the future of the Tees Valley economy.Safety is a top priority and we will continue to ensure the Official Receiver has all the funding and support necessary to deliver a safe and orderly closure of these assets, working with the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency.Finally, I would like place on record my own thanks to all of those who have helped to operate SSI’s facilities safely during this particularly difficult period and are continuing to do so.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS224

Publication of Government decisions on copycat packaging

Nick Boles: Today I am publishing a Report on the enforcement provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the “CPRs”). The report reviews the case for giving businesses a power to seek civil injunctions against ‘copycat packaging’ (packaging designed to give a product the ‘look and feel’ of a competing well-known brand). The Coalition Government agreed to review the case for granting businesses an injunctive power in relation to copycat packaging. BIS published a Call for Evidence seeking views on the proposal in April last year. I do not believe that the responses to the Call for Evidence have yet made the case for granting such civil injunction powers. I am announcing my decision that such a power should not be granted at this time. The CPRs implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (the “UCPD”). Copycat packaging potentially infringes provisions of the CPRs which prohibit traders from engaging in certain misleading actions including marketing a product in a way which creates confusion with a competitor’s products, distinguishing marks etc. Specified enforcers such as the Competition and Markets Authority and Trading Standards Officers may enforce the CPRs by civil sanctions; there are also separate criminal sanctions. Although the UCPD allows for competing businesses to be given enforcement powers, that option was not exercised when the CPRs were made in 2008. The report I am publishing today highlights the key issues and assesses the evidence on consumer detriment, competition and innovation. The views expressed during the review were polarised. Certain brand owners argued that a lack of enforcement has resulted in consumers being misled and sales being diverted from brand owners, which they say reduces innovation and distorts competition. For retailers, these arguments illustrate that the case is driven not by consumer concerns but by commercial considerations; they consider granting the power could be anti-competitive while not benefiting consumers. Others noted the absence of consumer appetite for action, questioned the appropriateness of amending consumer law to facilitate business-to-business litigation, and doubted whether there is a material enforcement gap given existing powers to pursue action in respect of intellectual property infringement as well as passing-off. Public enforcers do not currently consider there is consumer detriment arising from similar packaging (and if there were, that it would be mitigated by access to quick and easy redress i.e. exchange of products bought in error). They are also concerned that granting the power would damage the integrity of the enforcement system. Brands are important to the UK economy and it is clear from the report that positive brand innovation is important to consumers. Following the review, I conclude there is little clear evidence that the use of similar packaging is causing any significant consumer detriment or hindering competition or innovation. There would be risks of unintended consequences if we changed the status quo, given the uncertainty around the evidence and the effects of the change, particularly in respect of the litigation that would result, and on enforcement. More generally, it would be difficult to reconcile granting this enforcement power with the Government’s deregulatory objectives. I will be placing the report in the Libraries of the House. It will also be published online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consumer-protection-copycat-packaging-call-for-evidence. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS223

Review of Consumer Protection Measures applying to the Resale of Tickets through Secondary Ticketing Facilities

Sajid Javid: Together with my Rt hon Friend, the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Rt hon John Whittingdale). I am today announcing that Professor Michael Waterson, Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, has been appointed to Chair an independent, consultative and evidence based review of consumer protection measures in the online ticket resale market. As required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this independently chaired review on secondary ticketing will report its findings before 26 May 2016.The terms of reference of the review and a call for evidence will be available on the gov.uk website and will be placed in the libraries of the House. Professor Waterson will consider the evidence and consult the broad spectrum of views on secondary ticketing, including from event organisers, primary ticket sellers, the online resale industry, enforcement authorities and consumers as both sellers and purchasers of tickets. I am sure that parliamentarians will be interested in the progress of the review.  


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS221

Royal Mail

Sajid Javid: The Government has made a further sale of Royal Mail plc shares equivalent to 13% of the company, at a price of 455p pence per share. The Government will also take this final opportunity to reward Royal Mail’s eligible UK employees for their hard work and will gift a further 1% of the company to them.These disposals will complete the disposal of all of the Government’s shareholding and the company is now for the first time wholly owned by a combination of employees and private investors.Following independent financial advice, the Government decided to sell its remaining shareholding in Royal Mail. The shares were sold through an accelerated bookbuild which enabled Government to realise value for the taxpayer.The disposal has raised £591.1 million which will be used to help pay down the national debt.There is no policy need for Government to hold shares in Royal Mail as the universal postal service remains well protected by law and by Ofcom.Royal Mail has demonstrated that it can thrive in the private sector. It now has the ability to access the funds it needs to ensure that it has a sustainable future and can adapt to the changes in the postal market.We will be liaising with Royal Mail about the arrangements for the further gift of shares to Royal Mail’s UK employees and will inform the House of the details when these have been finalised.Post Office Ltd, which operates the network of branches throughout the UK, remains wholly-owned by government and was separated from Royal Mail in April 2012. The relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail is a commercial one and a 10 year contract for the delivery of Royal Mail services through post offices was put in place in 2012.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS220